Georgia Aquarium's Ocean Voyager is spectacular, but most of the rest aquarium really is pretty average. Although, granted, it's really hard to make anything "amazing" considering it's not easy to push away from the usual aquarium format.
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
I think Woodland Park isn't really overrated, it receives a lot of praise and I think fairly so. And I say that from having been there and being quite impressed overall.
Lincoln Park is one of the most underrated zoos in the country. It feels weird to call a zoo that receives well over 3 million annual visitors in one of the worlds largest cities underrated, but so many times has this place been blown off in favor of the much larger Brookfield and theres this notion that the exhibit quality isn't as good. In reality, theres not a single bad exhibit left in the whole zoo and even being land locked on about 30 acres, the zoo still comfortably fits giraffes, rhinos, wolves, lions (in a few months), seals, two species of bear, two species of great ape, several species of hoofstock, over a dozen different small primates, houses for reptiles and small mammals and birds etc (plus a few rarities such as Puerto Rican parrots, kagu, aardvark, red wolves and others) all in exhibits that range from good to good to fantastic. Theres beautiful historic buildings that has been preserved with modern designs and in the past five years all of the crappy exhibits (lion house, bear grottos, seabird house) have been replaced thanks to a multi million dollar revamp of a large portion of the zoo.
There are a few minor blemishes of course. The primate house isn't bad but keeping that any species indoors year round is not great and there really isn't anything special besides the wonderful architecture. The hoofstock yards are pretty unremarkable, and the all indoor pygmy hippo exhibit needs work as well. I also find the rhino complex to be a bit small. But those are all minor issues in an otherwise fantastic zoo. Solid collection, no bad exhibits, several great exhibits, great historical heritage, great location, affordable etc. All the makings of a great zoo.
There are a few minor blemishes of course. The primate house isn't bad but keeping that any species indoors year round is not great and there really isn't anything special besides the wonderful architecture. The hoofstock yards are pretty unremarkable, and the all indoor pygmy hippo exhibit needs work as well. I also find the rhino complex to be a bit small. But those are all minor issues in an otherwise fantastic zoo. Solid collection, no bad exhibits, several great exhibits, great historical heritage, great location, affordable etc. All the makings of a great zoo.
I agree that Ocean Voyager is impressive—there’s no denying that. The main reason I think it’s overrated is because of many people naming it the #1 US aquarium, but without Ocean Voyager, no one would be saying such a thing. It’s still a top aquarium, but there are some that I would put higher, such as Dallas World Aquarium and possibly National Aquarium.
When it comes to Georgia Aquarium, the entire place aside from Ocean Voyager ranges from average exhibitry to just plain bad. Apart from the Belugas (which I don't think have a great exhibit either), I really don't think this place would receive all that much attention, at least not good attention, without OC.
This is, of course, excluding the new shark exhibit which I have not seen or heard much about in terms of quality.
~Thylo
This is, of course, excluding the new shark exhibit which I have not seen or heard much about in terms of quality.
~Thylo
I would agree with you in terms of their two cetacean facilities, cheap looking sea otter habitat and the sea lion exhibit. It could be due to the fact that I've visited so few aquariums but I was amazed by the designs of the other two lesser attractions - River Scout and Tropical Diver (especially the upgrades). I'm a sucker for the partially overhead tanks, and the River Scout's alligator display allows you to see them from above and below in the same space.
As for Predators of the Deep, it would not receive the hype if it didn't exhibit hammerheads and tigers, or offer cage dives. It's just one, dark tank filled with painfully obvious fake rock that you circle around. The interactive graphics save this from being your average shark attraction.
The issue with Georgia is that they haven't really ever had to try too hard. Because they started off with Ocean Voyager they have developed a certain "burnout" disorder. They started with Ocean Explorer which made them world-famous, because of that they didn't have to ever try as hard again. People don't care if their Beluga exhibit is too small because that's not why people go to Georgia. Also, I've already slightly talked about cetacea exhibits in America, so I won't bring the entire topic back up again but many Cetacea exhibits are just flat-out lazy and not large enough for their inhabitants.
Just curious, what do you think cetacean exhibits should be? Sure a large empty tank seems kind of boring but what else do you keep them in?
Natural substrate, changes in depth, fake rock amenities (or in the case of Belugas maybe fake/real floating ice), non-public spaces, toys... There's a long list of ways most cetacean enclosures can be upgraded imo.
~Thylo
That's too bad about the shark exhibit, I was hoping for more. As for Tropical Diver, I haven't seen the upgrades (I don't think?) but I found the exhibit to be totally fine, but nonetheless generic for a larger aquarium.
~Thylo
Well, I think Thylo covered it pretty well but here are some other additions. More space (mainly for belugas but can be applied to other species), more creativity in exhibit design, more attention for the animals as animals (some shows are extremely demoralizing to Seals, Sea Lions, and Dolphins why can't we just have nice exhibits instead of bad exhibits for better shows). I would also add better diversity but it's impossible to bring in new animals without a mass stranding event, Commersons Dolphins are almost gone in captivity, SeaWorld has no interest in breeding pilot whales, and Orcas are a dead end.
I don't like ethnic names given to animals. Which is ironic because I sometimes dream of being a benefactor who has naming rights and give Turkish names to animals.
I don't really care for marine mammal/bird exhibits at aquariums. I don't mind one or two but when you have places like Osaka Aquarium that has five such exhibits (two for penguins, two for pinnipeds and one for dolphins), I can't help but feel it's a bit much and the space could be better used for fish/invertebrates/herps.
I think the catch in this case in bar sharks pretty much all the major aquarium draws are either birds or mammals. Cetaceans, pinnipeds, sea otter, and penguins (and maybe puffins) are key players in drawing in people. Sharks work too, but it's rare they're the standalone draw of any mid-size to large aquarium. Fish and invertebrates in general just aren't quite enough typically for a lot of people. Monterey Bay Aquarium only has Sea Otter and penguins, but those are easily the most popular and congested areas on a standard basis in my experience.
That is a valid argument. I knew of a keeper at Bursa who didn’t give Turkish names to animals to avoid having visitors who would get offended having a beast bear their name. At the same zoo there were other animals with Turkish names which made is peculiar.
I don't like seeing the same species in several exhibits in a zoo. This is especially irritating when an unusual species is kept behind the scenes. I remember the CCTV in the Kiwi House at Stuttgart Zoo, so visitors could see the kiwi when it was indoors. Surely other zoos could have a similar facility for species kept behind the scenes.
It's almost as if aquariums devote just some of their space for at most dozens of non-fish species compared to the hundreds of fish species that are displayed within aquariums.